Creation Science - Think Atheist2015-03-31T18:32:06Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/creation-science?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A911656&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noWell all I ever hear about it…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-10-30:1982180:Comment:9116562011-10-30T04:26:54.856ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
<p>Well all I ever hear about it is that they totally fabricate everything. I was amazed to find that they were actually using valid statistical methods for analyzing evidence.</p>
<p>Well all I ever hear about it is that they totally fabricate everything. I was amazed to find that they were actually using valid statistical methods for analyzing evidence.</p> Good to know. I must admit to…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-09:1982180:Comment:7348222011-07-09T02:04:37.709ZJameshttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/1989LX
Good to know. I must admit to making that initial assumption though. Seems I need to catch up on the rest of the replies. :)
Good to know. I must admit to making that initial assumption though. Seems I need to catch up on the rest of the replies. :) Actually I found out well int…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-08:1982180:Comment:7336542011-07-08T04:28:05.363ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
Actually I found out well into the discussion here that he isn't, in fact, a creationist. He is a mainstream scientist who uses creation science to show that creation science hypotheses don't even stand up to it. So he was being fully honest after all - but many in this thread were completely unable to see that when they thought he was a creationist.
Actually I found out well into the discussion here that he isn't, in fact, a creationist. He is a mainstream scientist who uses creation science to show that creation science hypotheses don't even stand up to it. So he was being fully honest after all - but many in this thread were completely unable to see that when they thought he was a creationist. I don't believe in "if" anymo…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-08:1982180:Comment:7335552011-07-08T02:36:45.981ZDoug Reardonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DougReardon
I don't believe in "if" anymore.
I don't believe in "if" anymore. I do wholly appreciate that h…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-08:1982180:Comment:7335532011-07-08T02:34:31.266ZJameshttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/1989LX
<p>I do wholly appreciate that he states that he'd have to amend his former denial of evolution should the evidence prove macro-evolution to be so. Then he goes on forever in a micro not macro sort of fashion. Then, at the end Dr Senter seems to acknowledged evolution and that creationists increasing have less and less areas to stand on evidential grounds. If this is honest, I applaud him for it. I fear that I didn't properly comprehend the story when I read it half asleep the first…</p>
<p>I do wholly appreciate that he states that he'd have to amend his former denial of evolution should the evidence prove macro-evolution to be so. Then he goes on forever in a micro not macro sort of fashion. Then, at the end Dr Senter seems to acknowledged evolution and that creationists increasing have less and less areas to stand on evidential grounds. If this is honest, I applaud him for it. I fear that I didn't properly comprehend the story when I read it half asleep the first time.</p>
<p>That said, an honest look at evidence isn't what the majority mean when they say 'creation science'. To most it's starting with a conclusion and then they just build up around it. In this case he seems to be being honest to at least some degree about where the evidence leads. I do still feel that there's much not mentioned in the article that should easily close the case on creation for him. But if he remains true to his word and follows the evidence no matter what, he'll be where we are eventually.</p> well said and agreed.tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-08:1982180:Comment:7335382011-07-08T02:22:47.443Zmatt.clerkehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/mattclerke
well said and agreed.
well said and agreed. Now we are going in circles a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-07:1982180:Comment:7334052011-07-07T23:39:53.296ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
Now we are going in circles as you deny the actual course you took in place of a course you suggest you would take. That's where the discussion ends, I'm pulling out of the traffic circle.
Now we are going in circles as you deny the actual course you took in place of a course you suggest you would take. That's where the discussion ends, I'm pulling out of the traffic circle. You said:
If anyone used scie…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-07:1982180:Comment:7333892011-07-07T23:08:23.907ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
<p>You said:</p>
<p><em>If <strong>anyone</strong> used scientific methodology, with valid data and was published in a non-creationist peer-reviewed publication, I would seriously take it under consideration.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>But that isn't true. This scientist used scientific methodology with valid data and published his findings in a non-creationist peer-reviewed publication and you 100% rejected any validity of his study because you thought he was a creationist. Sorry to say, but your…</p>
<p>You said:</p>
<p><em>If <strong>anyone</strong> used scientific methodology, with valid data and was published in a non-creationist peer-reviewed publication, I would seriously take it under consideration.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>But that isn't true. This scientist used scientific methodology with valid data and published his findings in a non-creationist peer-reviewed publication and you 100% rejected any validity of his study because you thought he was a creationist. Sorry to say, but your claims do not hold up to the evidence at hand.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now you go on with an unwavering definition of how creationists go about their work, but you've already proven you are too bigoted to even read the findings of someone you think might be a creationist - so I must ask, is your definition formed on evidence or just dogmatic opinion? I'm sorry, that question was already answered in the previous paragraph.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I guess I have no more questions.</p> Wow - so exact same data, met…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-07:1982180:Comment:7333052011-07-07T22:12:27.920ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
Wow - so exact same data, methodology, and publication with identical peer reviews but you would find out one author was creationist and discount his work while accepting identical work by a person not known to be a creationist? What's the point of even using science then?
Wow - so exact same data, methodology, and publication with identical peer reviews but you would find out one author was creationist and discount his work while accepting identical work by a person not known to be a creationist? What's the point of even using science then? I have this rather big blog I…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-07:1982180:Comment:7331072011-07-07T20:58:49.828ZHeather Spoonheimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/HeatherSpoonheim
<p>I have this rather big blog I was about to post debunking 'Mysterious Origins of Man', a 'documentary' that attempts to show a lot of scientific bias. The actual evidence they use is all very well debunked already, so it's just a matter of collating all that information as a case against the tv program - except for Hueyatlaco, but they greatly misrepresented what went on there so I can work with that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I need to rewrite a big part of the intro now, however. I had…</p>
<p>I have this rather big blog I was about to post debunking 'Mysterious Origins of Man', a 'documentary' that attempts to show a lot of scientific bias. The actual evidence they use is all very well debunked already, so it's just a matter of collating all that information as a case against the tv program - except for Hueyatlaco, but they greatly misrepresented what went on there so I can work with that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I need to rewrite a big part of the intro now, however. I had 'discredited' Michael Cremo and Robert Taylor purely on the grounds that they were Hindu Creationists. Seeing how fallacious it truly is to discount someone's research based on a single aspect of their personal philosophy I need to get out of the habit of doing that. I'm amazed at how quickly everything Senter had done was discredited here based exclusively on the premise he was a creationist - even though he was proving evolution.</p>